Quo Primum, Papal Authority and the Sacred Liturgy

[Fr. McNamara at Zenit is asked the always controversy-creating question about the nature of Quo Primum Tempore, the bull of St. Pius V. Speaking as a devotee of the classical Roman liturgy, not to mention a staunch supporter of a reform of the reform, there is an argument out there amongst certain traditionalists -- certainly not all -- which is overly-absolutist with regard to this papal bull. That argument in effect would make this disciplinary document of St. Pius V, and the particular liturgical forms that relate to it, virtually dogmatic in nature -- and of course it isn't and they aren't.

This isn't to say that the question of the canonical status of a liturgy that has known continuous development for millenia is not a genuine, serious or complex issue. Nor does it mitigate the fact there is a legitimate canonical question as to the present legal status of the classical rite in the light of the substantial liturgical reform that occurred after the Council -- all questions that will hopefully be clarified in the upcoming motu proprio. But unfortunately, I think the not terribly nuanced or contextualized understanding that some traditionalists present of Quo Primum sidetracks people from these other, substantive arguments and questions with regard the classical Roman liturgy, as well as the substantive concerns with the scope of the post-conciliar liturgical reform as it actually happened.

Note: Some important qualifying comments to follow at the end of the article.]

by Fr. E. McNamara, Zenit.org

Q: "Quo Primum" is a papal bull decreed by Pope St. Pius V on July 14, 1570, which set in stone for all time the exactness of the holy sacrifice of the Mass to be said in the mother tongue of the Church. To quote his instruction: "[I]t shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us; ..." Another: "… which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein." Another: "In the case of those resident in other parts of the world it shall be excommunication 'latae sententiae' and all other penalties at Our discretion ..." Finally: "Should any person venture to do so, let him understand that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul." In the light of the foregoing: 1) Can an ancient papal bull be amended, changed, modified, abrogated, etc., by future popes? If yes, then what are the conditions? 2) Is the Mass of Pope Paul VI licit and valid? -- A.D., Carindale, Australia

A: A papal bull (from "bolla," the leaden seal attached to the document) is a solemn instrument that popes use for various questions such as doctrinal decisions, canonizations, disciplinary questions, jubilees and the like. Only occasionally have they been used for the liturgy.

A bull's influence on later popes depends on the nature of its content and not the legal force of the document as such.

Thus a bull such as "Ineffabilis Deus" through which Blessed Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 is a definitive and irreformable act.

Other bulls may contain a mixture of doctrinal and disciplinary matters. An example would be Pius IV's 1564 document "Dominici Gregis Custodiae" containing the rules for forbidding books, among which was the norm that reading a translation of the Old Testament was restricted to learned and pious men with permission from the bishop.

Such norms are evidently tied to the circumstances of time and place and may be adjusted, attenuated or abrogated by future popes as situations change.

St. Pius V's bull "Quo Primum" is above all a legal document although it also contains some doctrinal elements. As such it is not intended to be definitive in the same way as a doctrinal definition would be and would not bind St. Pius V himself or future popes if they decided to further fine-tune the missal.

The saintly Pope's concern was to ensure as much unity as possible for the liturgy in a time when such unity was sorely needed. Even so, the same bull contains a clause exempting any Church which had its own ordo more than 200 years old. Many local Churches could have availed of this concession but most preferred to adopt the new missal for practical reasons.

Some religious orders and some dioceses such as Lyon in France and Milan in Italy did opt to legitimately maintain their own rite. Thus expressions such as "it shall be unlawful henceforth and forever throughout the Christian world to sing or to read Masses according to any formula other than that of this Missal published by Us" cannot be interpreted in an absolutely literal sense.

Likewise, legal expressions such as "which shall have the force of law in perpetuity, We order and enjoin under pain of Our displeasure that nothing be added to Our newly published Missal, nothing omitted therefrom, and nothing whatsoever altered therein" cannot be literally interpreted as binding on possible later actions of Pope St. Pius V or upon his successors. The strictures fall only upon those who act without due authority.

If it were otherwise, then Pope St. Pius V would have excommunicated himself a couple of years after publishing "Quo Primum" when he added the feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to the missal following the Battle of Lepanto in 1571, not to mention Pope Clement XI who canonized Pius V in 1712, thus altering the missal.

Among the many other Popes who would have thus incurred "the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul" would have been St. Pius X for reforming the calendar, Pius XI who added the first new preface in centuries for the feast of Christ the King, Pius XII for completely revamping the rites of Holy Week as well as simplifying the rubrics, and Blessed John XXIII for adding St. Joseph's name to the Roman Canon.

[The paragraphs about to follow merit some qualifications. Please read them after Fr. McNamara's.]

Certainly, the reform undertaken under the Servant of God Pope Paul VI ranged more widely than anything done under earlier Popes since St. Pius V. But Paul VI acted with the same papal authority as all of them.

As the Roman proverb goes: "Popes die, the Pope never." Each individual pontiff -- saint or sinner though he be -- holds the same authority, granted by Christ, to bind and loose, forgive or retain, so that the Lord's flock may be fed through the centuries.

It is for this reason that, except in matters of faith and morals, a pope's disciplinary decrees in matters such as the non-essential elements of liturgical rites are never "set in stone" and can be changed by a subsequent Supreme Pontiff whenever he believes that the duty of feeding Christ's flock requires it.

Finally, the answer to the second question should be already clear, the so-called Mass of Paul VI is both valid and licit.

[With regard to the above few paragraphs, a caveat would seem prudent: while acknowledging the Pauline liturgy to be, of course, valid and licit, at the same time we should counter-balance this with the fact that the liturgy should not be subjected to an arbitary use of juridical power either, with due deference to organic development and the objective nature of the liturgy as something to most primarily be received, not conceived. This is something we read in the Catechism and in the thought of Benedict/Ratzinger:

"The pope is not an absolute monarch whose will is law; rather, he is the guardian of the authentic Tradition and, thereby, the premier guarantor of obedience. He cannot do as he likes, and he is thereby able to oppose those people who, for their part, want to do whatever comes into their head. His rule is not that of arbitrary power, but that of obedience in faith. That is why, with respect to the Liturgy, he has the task of a gardener, not that of a technician who builds new machines and throws the old ones on the junk-pile." (Preface to Alcuin Reid, The Organic Development of the Liturgy, 2nd ed. Ignatius 2005 pp. 10-11)

I think this caveat should be borne in mind as a necessary and important qualifier in relation to ecclesial authority and both liturgical form and reform.]